VIJAY BAJPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that from the perusal of the F. I. R. and the statement of the witnesses, the offence under Section 504 IPC is not made out. In this regard, he relies upon the pronouncement given by the another single judge Bench of this Court in criminal revision No. 1699 of 1990 Jodh Singh v. State of u. P. He also argues that in view of the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court, the financier is entitled to take the possession of the vehicle in case of default of payment in installments.

(2.) RELYING upon the judgment given in jodh Singh v. State of U. P. , he insists that since the abuses are not reproduced in the f. I. R. , hence it cannot be ascertained that the words spoken are or not capable of giving provocation to any other person.

(3.) IT is true that in case of default of payment of installments, the financier is entitled to take the possession of the vehicle financed by it but there is nothing entitling the financier to abuse or assault the loanee or to take forcibly the key of the vehicle.